Re: licenses.texi and sectioning commands

[Roland McGrath]

>     I.e., don't forget gfdl.texi.  Is that the intention?
> 
> Yes.  I checked in new versions of all the Texinfo licenses to gnulib:
> fdl.texi gpl-2.0.texi gpl-3.0.texi lgpl-2.1.texi lgpl-3.0.texi.
> 
> Let me know if problems ...

The old lgpl.texi was usable in a manual like libc's with:

        @set lgpl-appendix
        @node Copying, Documentation License, Free Manuals, Top
        @include lesser.texi

The LGPLv3 text is not self-contained, but refers to the GPLv3 text.
So dropping lgpl-3.0.texi in omits the bulk of the license.

Firstly, GNU Central should do more to explicitly show maintainers exactly
what is required to update a package.  It would have been very easy to
think I'd updated correctly, but produce a manual that nowhere had the text
of the heart of the license.

So, if there were coherent instructions for maintainers like there ought to
have been already, what would they say?

Should gpl-3.0.texi and lgpl-3.0.texi be used as two separate nodes and
appendices?  What's the canonical node name for each now that "Copying" and
"License" are no longer unambiguous?  

I know there are various coherent ways to do it.  I don't want to choose.
Someone just tell me.  It's a GNU manual, wholly owned the FSF.  There
ought to be a standard answer that the Project tells me as a maintainer.


Thanks,
Roland